A proposal to reduce confusion.

The use of "conspiracy theorist" for people like those that say Sandy Hook never happened, cause fog because it implies that they have a theory that is of equal stature to theory proposed by people who know what the word means.

To reduce that fog I suggest we use "conspiracy advocate" for those people. It's obvious that this is what they're doing so there shouldn't be any problems.

Some have been proven to be true such as the faked moon landing and 9/11's having been an inside job. Some of the others are likely to be true but really haven't been proven such as the Manson killings' having been a government black operation or the Titanic's having been switched with the Olympic. I haven't formed a firm opinion on those.

Some have been proven to be true such as the faked moon landing and 9/11's having been an inside job. Some of the others are likely to be true but really haven't been proven such as the Manson killings' having been a government black operation or the Titanic's having been switched with the Olympic. I haven't formed a firm opinion on those.

Thinking is not a panacea. The key to reasonable conclusions is the recognition that our thinking might be wrong. Conspiracy advocates seldom consider the possibility. On the contrary, if their conclusions are proven wrong, that's just further "evidence" to them of a cover-up. The conclusion supersedes the reasoning.

Thinking is not a panacea. The key to reasonable conclusions is the recognition that our thinking might be wrong. Conspiracy advocates seldom consider the possibility. On the contrary, if their conclusions are proven wrong, that's just further "evidence" to them of a cover-up. The conclusion supersedes the reasoning.

Click to expand...

And close inspection shows that they don't care about the fatal flaws in their "theories", because their mission is to attack a person or entity, not to get at the truth. Calumny and slander is their mission.

Thinking is not a panacea. The key to reasonable conclusions is the recognition that our thinking might be wrong. Conspiracy advocates seldom consider the possibility. On the contrary, if their conclusions are proven wrong, that's just further "evidence" to them of a cover-up. The conclusion supersedes the reasoning.

Click to expand...

When dealing with CAs [self-impressed CTs] I frequently reference an excellent study done by the U of Chicago Law, School, Conspiracy Theories [http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=law_and_economics] which in effect states what you have said (I think perhaps you may have seen it?). It further makes the inference that the strengths of said 'theories' is in direct proportion to the volume of their detractors. Oliver Stone take note!

They have not been proven to be so. Linking to assertions does not a proof make.

You can insist all you want, but since skeptical people are not obliged to accept it without sufficient evidence, what's the point in continuing to insist? You should just get on with calling us all sheeple and leaving in disgust. That way, you can spend more of your time frequenting sites that confirm your beliefs. A win-win for all, right?

They have not been proven to be so. Linking to assertions does not a proof make.

You can insist all you want, but since skeptical people are not obliged to accept it without sufficient evidence, what's the point in continuing to insist? You should just get on with calling us all sheeple and leaving in disgust. That way, you can spend more of your time frequenting sites that confirm your beliefs. A win-win for all, right?

Click to expand...

Your playing dumb about the proof doesn't make it go away.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
------------------------------------------

The proof is very clear in both cases. You're trying to sway those viewers who don't take the time to look at it. You're trying to create the illusion of wide support on the internet for that point of view.

http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs orteams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.